King Donald was top of the lizard Oz this day, smiting and smoting the chief enemy of the reptiles in a way most satisfying to the hive mind...
There being a lot to cover, the pond sent the lesser member of the Kelly gang's report straight to the archive ...
In a tense White House exchange, Donald Trump has confirmed an upcoming meeting with Anthony Albanese while shutting down questions from an ABC journalist.
By Joe Kelly
At least John Lyons gave 4 Corners a sample of the madness of King Donald, while Albo waited in the wings, the chance of a ritual humiliation for him rising by the maddened Day ...
Over on the extreme far right there was the ongoing madness of MAGA-cap-donning Dame Slap ...
On a slow day the pond would possibly have made use of the madness of Dame Slap, hitting her tiresome repeat key on the keyboard, as Xmas stocking filler, but instead decided to send her off, if not to a school above the magic faraway tree, then off to the archive ...
Is it any wonder that young voters come out of school and university much more left-wing than previous generations?
By Janet Albrechtsen
Columnist
A sample will show why ...
It's all there, the march through the institutions, the murky misrepresentation of the source of a quote, yadda yadda ...
The only upside?
The routine Slappian hysteria, distilled essence of King Donald, reminded the pond of an opening to a piece by Thomas Chattterton Williams in The Atlantic, The Right Is Changing the Rules of the Culture War, For conservatives, cancel culture is in.
Rufo’s about-face reveals something else too: The rules of the culture war are changing. Take it from Rufo himself. “The Right’s longstanding proposal—to ‘cancel cancel culture’—might make for a good slogan,” he wrote in the same essay from February. Now, with Donald Trump back in the White House, he says that conservatives have to be more proactive. “We should acknowledge that culture is a way for society to establish a particular hierarchy of values and to provide a way to police the boundaries,” Rufo wrote. “And then we should propose a new set of values that expands the range of acceptable discourse rightward.”
Judging by his recent campaign, however, Rufo seems to be less concerned with expanding discourse on the right than with limiting its range on the left. Instead of canceling cancel culture, he seems to want to reverse engineer it for his own priorities. “All cultures cancel,” he has concluded. “The question is, for what, and by whom.”
Moving right along, Ben was still packing it as he was briefly top of the world ma, on the far right ...
Anthony Albanese travelled to PNG with high hopes of signing a landmark defence treaty. The agreement is ambitious – perhaps too ambitious if events of the past 48 hours are anything to go by.
By Ben Packham
Meanwhile, the reptiles did their best to send any talk of genocide to the cornfield, with an opening triumphalist flourish celebrating wanton destruction down there with Hitler's treatment of the Warsaw ghetto ...
Israel launches new ground offensive into Gaza City
Troops from two divisions of the IDF were manoeuvring to surround the centre of Gaza City, while a third division operated to the north.
By Dov Lieber, Alexander Ward and Abeer Ayyoub
While pumping up the killing fields, the reptiles reluctantly noted the genocide ...
The expanding operation came as a United Nations commission concluded in a new report that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. It pointed to statements by Israeli leaders and a pattern of conduct by Israeli security forces. Legal experts said the report could bolster charges of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
... but then it was quickly sent to the cornfield, and you'd have to head elsewhere for the grim findings ...
‘Gross exaggerations’ in economic impact of climate change report
A landmark climate risk report has been criticised by economists for creating unwarranted ‘scepticism’ on the economic impact of climate change.
By Matthew Cranston and Noah Yim
A teaser trailer for that offering ...
You have to hand it to the reptiles, there's an endless supply of useful idiots in the world, and they always find the right one for the job at hand ...
And with that survey of reptile proceedings done, it was time for the pond to settle back and enjoy the bromancer, as expert a climate science denialist as the reptiles can muster ...
The header: What the Liberals should do to avoid scorched earth climate policy, Andrew Hastie has surely decided the net-zero debate within the Coalition. Susan Ley must now supervise a process in which the Liberal and National parties abandon reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 as a binding target.
The caption for that diabolically hideous and completely meaningless lead illustration: A city showing the effect of Climate Change. Picture: iStock
It took the bromancer four minutes to strut his denialist stuff, worship the pastie Hastie, and get on board the Canavan caravan, and the pond saw no reason to interrupt, because it assumes its correspondents already know more of the science in their little finger than the bromancer has in his entire corpus ...
Hastie has said he’ll go to the backbench if the party sticks with net zero. Other front benchers would follow. The idea of the coalition in opposition with Hastie, Jacinta Nampijimpa Price, Matt Canavan and other high performers all on the backbench is completely untenable.
The Coalition might sign its political death warrant by rejecting net zero, or by sticking with net zero. Ley needs to resolve this soon. The vacuum isn’t helping the Coalition win arguments or friends.
To coin a phrase, the cost of inaction might be greater than the cost of action.
The Australian debate, though entirely derivative, is always a few years behind Europe and the US. The truth is the world is moving away from net zero.
The Economist magazine, the house journal of liberal internationalism, recently recommended that the world abandon net zero by 2050 as a hard target because there is absolutely no chance it will happen. Many nations’ net-zero pledges, it said, “are barely physically imaginable, let alone politically feasible”.
No respectable centre-right party in the Anglophone is now seriously committed to net zero, because it’s an inherently fraudulent concept and entirely unachievable. Trying to reach it involves massive costs.
You might regard Donald Trump as a special case, which couldn’t be replicated here. But look at the UK. Nigel Farage’s Reform party rejects net zero and is 10 points ahead of Labour. The British Conservatives also reject net zero. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told me she hasn’t become a climate sceptic but has become completely sceptical about net zero by 2050.
Canada’s centre-left Prime Minister Mark Carney, under pressure from the conservatives, has rowed way back on net zero.
Most excellent stuff ...
Sorry, at this point the reptiles actually inserted old graphics, perhaps on the basis of never letting an aged graphic go to waste.
As the pond has already featured them, it was time for a downsizing, while retaining the spirit of contradicting the bromancer's scribbles with images and talk of doom...
The central paradox of Australia’s situation is surely an example of the divine sense of humour. We are a rich nation because we export fossil fuels, especially coal and gas, and other minerals such as iron ore. These riches allow us to pay the extravagant subsidies involved in supporting intermittent, renewable energy. The lesson of every democratic polity is that once the costs of net-zero policies afflict voters, they move to wind them back.
However, the way Ley and the Coalition dismount from net zero is crucial. There must be a compromise which explicitly abandons net zero as a binding target, which explicitly commits to low-cost and reliable energy, but which still favours reducing greenhouse gas emissions and even holds that if technology one day makes net zero feasible, the Coalition will embrace that technology.
That compromise could surely keep the band of net zero true believers in the tent because they can say they will invest in the technology. It should also be enough to keep Hastie and Price in the tent, and hopefully to bring Matt Canavan back to the front bench, if they have any capacity for compromise at all.
At this point the reptiles interrupted with an AV distraction, featuring a thumb of the pastie Hastie which was more vintage than the cheese in the pond's fridge ... Shadow Home Affairs Minister Andrew Hastie says he is ready to quit or be dropped from the shadow cabinet if the Coalition does not abandon its support for net zero targets. The Western Australia MP has been campaigning against the climate target, but Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is yet to determine her party’s policy on the matter. “If I go out with the tide in two-and-a-half years, that’s great, you know, I’ll get a lot more time with my kids back,” Mr Hastie said. “My primary mission in politics is to build a stronger, more secure, more competitive Australia. Energy security is a vital input to that.”
It was vintage six years ago when the reptiles deployed it in a yarn about the pastie Hasty doing more harm than good ...
And so it's time for the bro to join the Canavan caravan - bring the abrasive distilled essence of loonery back to the front bench, what could possibly go wrong? (And where's Barners, Tamworth's shame, when he's badly needed and sorely missed?)
The giant test is whether the Coalition is capable of mounting a campaign, on net zero or anything else. Those who say the Coalition must go where the people are forget the voice referendum. It began life with 65 per cent support. The Coalition, on that issue brilliantly led by Price, campaigned passionately against and it lost decisively.
The Coalition has to be willing to campaign hard on key issues it believes in and which it can sell as affecting people’s lives.
The most effective opposition in recent Australian history was Tony Abbott against Julia Gillard, 2010 to 2013. Abbott was a brilliant campaigner himself but he also had two stupendously effective front benchers. Scott Morrison convinced the nation the Coalition could turn back illegal boat arrivals. Greg Hunt prosecuted the case against the carbon tax.
Both started out against public opinion, overwhelmingly disparaged by every institutional voice on the ABC, furiously opposed by almost all academia.
Morrison and Hunt are very different politicians. What they had in common was a huge work ethic, a fearless willingness to put the Coalition’s case at every opportunity, including in highly unsympathetic media forums, and a complete mastery of all the detail in their respective portfolio areas.
How the bromancer still remains infatuated, with his eternal love for the onion muncher always peeking out, as the reptiles slipped in another AV distraction, The government is turning attention back to climate change this week, today releasing a risk assessment of the impacts in a best and worst-case scenario if action on climate change is not taken.
All it did was make the pond think of 'toons...
And so to a final burst of crude populism, bromancer style ...
Surely there’s a way to get the Coalition’s very few quality performers back on the front bench fully in harness, and supporting actual Coalition policy.
At the moment, Labor is disguising the economic damage and cost of its energy policies by paying consumers endless subsidies to offset the cost of switching to allegedly cheaper power sources.
There are endless contradictions and non sequiturs in Australian net-zero policy. It falls apart on any serious examination.
The government’s attempt this week to scare voters into more costly action with horror stories of climate change rests on a fabulous non-sequitur. If we don’t embrace net zero in all its nuttiness, the argument goes, we’ll face these climate catastrophes.
In fact, whether we embrace net zero or not, we’ll have no measurable effect on the global climate at all.
The Coalition must be willing to tell voters the truth and fight for its beliefs. That involves neither crude populism nor any kind of prejudice. It involves a mixture of reality, courage and discipline, three good ingredients for political success.
As if the government hasn't already learned the fine art of doing nothing ...
Astute eyes will have already noted that Dame Groan was also out and about, dishing it up to vulgar youff ....
The header: Truth about intergenerational wealth and taxes Jim Chalmers doesn’t want you to know, The empirical existence of intergenerational inequality fails to stand up to serious scrutiny, but that doesn’t bother the Treasurer.
There was no credit for the hideous artwork accompanying that wincing Jimbo, and perhaps it's for the best: Disputes about intergenerational inequality are a poor basis for new taxes or hiking existing ones, says Judith Sloan.
Tbe reptiles clocked it as a full five minute dire groaning, and the pond settled back for the ride ...
“I think our tax system is imperfect, and one of its most troubling imperfections is best seen through an intergenerational lens,” Chalmers said.
According to this thinking, any additional tax imposts on older and generally wealthier Australians can be justified as only “fair” because these measures can benefit younger folk who struggle with the burden of income tax and bracket creep, as well as a lack of affordable housing.
Higher taxes on superannuation, possibly in addition to the 30 per cent tax on balances above $3m, could be contemplated in the name of intergenerational equity.
A wealth tax, an inheritance tax, a tax on the family home above a certain value – all can be justified to give young people a fairer go.
The fact that the empirical existence of intergenerational inequality fails to stand up to serious scrutiny doesn’t bother the Treasurer.
If enough gullible journalists and voters fall for the ruse, then the future looks much easier in terms of imposing discriminatory new taxes on a segment of the electorate that typically doesn’t vote Labor
For this reason, it is very important that the true facts are presented to call out the specious claims on which future actions of the Albanese government may rely.
A lot is made of the fact that older people are much wealthier than younger people.
It was always thus.
Yeah, get used to it, vulgar youff, though the pond frankly doubts that it will ever linger long on this interrupting illustration, an image of unremitting, relentless banality, a genuine import from the mugwump swamp of ancient collages, Are older Australians truly better off, or do younger generations have the real advantage? Sources: iStock. Artwork by Frank Ling
Oh Frank, Frank, just blame it on AI ...
Sure, everyone needs a break before carrying on with the groaning, but you're not helping, you're compounding the suffering ... as if oldies aren't suffering enough at the hands of vulgar youff on a daily basis.
It’s not clear that the wealth gap between the generations has shifted a great deal.
Wealth still peaks at age 50. Older people are wealthier than younger ones, with wealth plateauing around the ages of 75-80, in part a reflection of higher life expectancy compared with several decades ago.
The current older cohort benefited from the purple patch of economic reform that occurred from the mid-1980s to the early 2000s.
But the children of this generation were also recipients of the strong productivity growth and high growth rates through the generosity of their parents.
Rather than carping about intergenerational inequality, the obvious lesson is to initiate a new round of economic reform equivalent to the Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello periods in office.
There is also the point that today’s retirees and older workers have not enjoyed the benefits of a fully mature superannuation system.
Recall that universal superannuation came into existence in the early 1990s with a contribution rate of only 3 per cent. It has taken more than 30 years for the contribution rate to reach 12 per cent.
Several misleading propositions are made about intergenerational inequality, the proponents of which also often argue for a higher tax burden overall. One is that older Australians in retirement now have similar average incomes to working Australians.
But look under the bonnet and the range of tricks used to reach this conclusion are obvious. For one thing, unrealised capital gains are included as part of income.
Second, the value of social spending, including health, is included for the older cohort but not for the younger ones.
Of course, spending on health does rise as people age. But just think about it – an older person needs dialysis, for instance.
This is counted as income because it costs taxpayer dollars. Would the person rather not have kidney failure and forgo the “income” associated with the spending on their health? Of course, but this example illustrates the gymnastics that some economists will use to prove a point.
It’s also why consumption is regarded as the better measure of economic wellbeing rather than income. When this analysis is undertaken, the presumed intergenerational inequality is much less apparent.
Tax puzzle
Another point made is that people on the same incomes pay different amounts of tax depending on their age and circumstances.
The clear message is that this is wrong and must be remedied. But this observation confuses income from labour and income from capital.
We shouldn’t expect those earning income from their investments to pay the same as working income earners. After all, tax has been paid on the income that has funded the savings-investments.
In fact, the way we tax savings in this country is highly defective; with term deposits, for instance, attracting full marginal tax rates.
We all know there is a high reliance on individual income tax as a source of government revenue in Australia. And without any automatic indexation of the tax scales, the burden of income tax rises because of bracket creep.
This clearly is damaging to those paying income tax.
In combination with interactions with entitlements to social spending, including Family Tax Benefit and childcare subsidies, the net effect is to dull the incentives to work or to work longer hours.
But here’s an important consideration. The work of former Treasury officials, including Paul Tilley and Geoff Francis, has demonstrated that over time – and admittedly in fits and starts – bracket creep has been largely returned to income tax earners with the exception of those earning the highest incomes.
At this point the reptiles interrupted with another truly meaningless image, and Frank sensibly abandoned the field, sought no credit for this battering innocent eyeballs ... The wealth gap between the generations has shifted. Picture: iStock
Speaking of vulgar youff, Wilcox had a thought or two for the innocents asking questions ...
And so to the last gobbet, and the pond will only note that Dame Groan does attempt - ever so briefly - to do a Henry by citing Edmund Burke ...
It's pretty feeble, but as Dr Johnson observed, a woman scribbling and referencing Burke is like a dog's walking on hind legs, it is not done well, but it's surprising to find it done at all ... (ah, the joys of 18th century sexism, showing what was really afoot, as recorded by Boswell back on 31st July 1763) ...
Francis makes the important point that the percentage of income tax revenue paid by the highest-income earners has risen significantly over time. The top 15 per cent of income earners pay almost 60 per cent of all income tax revenue.
The broader point is that disputes about intergenerational inequality are a very poor basis for implementing new taxes or hiking existing ones. The economic logic of measures, coupled with first-best principles of design, must always be front of mind. Maintaining tight discipline on government spending is always preferred over dreaming up new tax measures.
Having said this, there is one important sense in which intergenerational inequality should be an important consideration for any government. This relates to the immorality of lumbering future generations with the debt accumulated from present excessive spending.
This point was made by political philosopher Edmund Burke, writing in the mid-18th century, when he described “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born”.
The fact is that the Albanese government is projecting many budget deficits in a row, leading to higher government debt to be paid off by future generations.
It’s all very well preferring the term “investment” over “spending”, but the reality is that most of the excessive spending will not generate returns to future generations – the NBN is a classic example.
Government spending has a proportion of GDP jumped by almost two percentage points between 2023-24 and 2025-26, and government debt exceeds $1 trillion. By 2028-29, it is expected to have reached $1.22 trillion.
So, let’s forget the futile spat between the living, young and old, and concentrate on ensuring that we do the right thing by those who are not yet born. It’s surely the least any government can do.
Indeed, indeed, vulgar youff, forget it all, you've never had it so good, and thanks to the assistance dished out by the lizard Oz's reptiles, the world is on a genuinely awesome path.
Think yourself lucky, as you battle with climate change and Skynet, and remember to enjoy quaffing that Dame Groan bromide, as soothing and placating a sense of sharing as might find anywhere in the hive mind ...
And so to celebrate this day's outing with the immortal Rowe, as joyous a Sailing to Byzantium as Yeats might conjure up ...
By golly that's a more up to date image for the pasty Hastie ...
... and doesn't he have a soft spot for the beefy boofhead from down Goulburn way, what with casting him as a Jack clutching his Rose, before hypothermia does its work ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.